skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Question 1- A Mishnah Contradiction
The Mishnah regarding an orphan girl says " לא יפחות לה מחמשים זוז- He does not give her less than 50 zuz". It continues " מפרנסין אותה לפי כבודה- They provide for her according to her honor." Why the difference in the language?
Give me your creative responses.
He does not give her less than 50 zuz."
ReplyDeleteMaybe the text is talking about dowry and about the yearly money the husband gives to his wife. I think "he" means husband. "He" could mean 3 things: the husband, the person marrying her off (like a relative), or someone in charge of the tzedakah. "He" can't be the one marrying her off because then he would provide the dowry but we already have the "they" providing the dowry. "He" also can't be the one in charge of tzedakah, because (again) we already have the "they" providing for her. The only option left is "he" being the husband. So the text is saying that even though she's an orphan, the husband still has to provide her with 50 zuzim a year for clothes.
As foe the "they", maybe the one writing this does not participate in tzedakah distribution or they could be the relatives she lives with (if she has relatives) who can provide for her.
I'm guessing the "he" most likely refers to the husband, and thus means that the husband cannot give his wife less than 50 zuz. The "they," however, doesn't refer to giving anything specific, and simply mentions "providing for her." Therefore, the "they" can refer to any of the girl's caretakers (not her parents, of course.), since anyone can really help provide for her. Because of the "according to her honor," maybe the real main point of the sentence is that people shouldn't treat orphan girls with pity simply because they are orphans, and treat them according to their personal honor. The only other meaning I can derive from it is that maybe it is referring to a case in which the girl may be homosexual, which I doubt due to the general attitude at the time.
ReplyDeleteAh. But we're talking here in the last part of the Mishnah- the part dealing with the ORPHAN. So who is the 'he' who gives to the orphan? And who is the 'they'? And why the difference?
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming that the mishnah is referring to an orphan BRIDE, since otherwise it's just instructing that a random payment be given to a random orphan, perhaps by her guardian. It would fit the rest of the text if the orphan was a bride as well.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the line "They provide for her according to her honor." I’m safely assuming the tzedakah fund is fulfilling the role as 'they' since most likely to determine honor you would probably have a community decide on that. Having the tzedakah play this role, they would be setting the bar for her level of honor so the other outside sources of giving to her already have her honor determined.
ReplyDeleteThe 'He' is the tzedakah and the 'They' is also tzedakah. The reasoning for "He" when it metnion 50 zuz is because it is customary that the Father(male) gives the 50 zuz to the daughter. But, in this case there is no Father to give the 50 zuz. So, they have a male person from the "tzedakah comittie" to give the orphan girl her dowery to continue the tradition.
ReplyDeleteI think that these two lines are referring to the tzedakkah collectors and the community.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rabbi Goodman, since the bride is an orphan, she is helped by the individuals in the community. The "he" refers to each individual. The "he should not give her less than fifty zuz" could be a guideline for how much the community should give to the tzedakkah collectors, each. After all, as we discussed in class, the "wallet of tzedakkah" should have enough money for all who need it.
As for the "they" this refers to the tzedakkah collectors. They provide the orphan girl "according to her wealth/honor". What does this mean? Perhaps it is a nice way of saying that the tzedakkah collectors should give her a nice sum of money while still having enough left in their wallet of tzedakkah to give to others who need it.
Amir, is there a process of finding a man to act as her father in this situation? This seems like a big step; a man that isn't her husband or father to provide her with what her father was to give her if he was still alive.
ReplyDeleteBeth, what honor or wealth does an orphan girl have? I'm pretty sure it's close to none. Therefore, I believe the woman should be provided for according to the wealth/dignity of her [soon-to-be] husband, especially when dealing with an orphan girl. Why, in this text, does it say that "they should provide her according to her wealth/dignity" when in the previous text, it states "provide her according to HIS wealth/dignity"? This makes a lot more sense. He is to provide for her and her necessities with HIS money, so why isn't his wealth/dignity being considered?
I agree with Ari, and in my opinion I think that the reason they say "according to HER wealth" is because if she is poor and has nothing or is "naked/bare" and you only give her 50 zuz to spend, it doesn't seem like enough to last(And as a back up question, do you think the 50 zuz is for clothes? or just in general?). I also think that it should be "provide according to HIS wealth" because he might not be able to pay that amount if he has nothing (and orphan). But maybe this was because it was expected of the men/husbands to make the money and provide and care for his wife, not the other way around back then.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ari's comment on Amir's comment, I think that the bride should be able to be married with out a male father figure. What if an orphan girl didn't have any brother, uncles, grandfather, or cousins? Who would marry her off then? What if there was a problem between her and the men of the tzedakah fund? Why should she have to depend on the custom of her father giving her away to ensure her financial security once married to her husband? Further more, shouldn’t the people of the tzedakah fund try to make it as easy and simple as possible to receive tzedakah?
ReplyDeleteAnna Brodski:
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ari’s comment stating that the orphan girl has no honor, it would make sense to judge her base on the honor of her deceases father. Also, I want to make a comment, that the girl although has the right to be given a dowry through tzdaka if the family can not afford it but the girl could still have a mother. In the times of the Mishnah, one was counted as an orphan if you did not have a father.
Answering the original question, the two statements could be entirely unrelated. While the “he” could be referring to the husband, that the husband has to provide his wife with a minimum of 50 zuz. The later stated “they” refers to the tzedaka fund helping out the woman if she needs more money.
Also a long shot, but the “he” could also be a standard to look up to. Not a particular person, simply someone (an ideal husband) very righteous and good that the Mishnah makes an example of. Then the “they” would be an ideal community, which would provide anything that the man can not in accordance to the woman’s honor.
I would like to point out that "they" could actually be referring to the same person as "he". For example- "Anyone who thinks they have been affected should contact their doctor." Since this passage is talking about husbands in general as Roza proved in her post, they could be being used as a generic pronoun not specifically reffering to any one person. Also, the language and translation back then could have been much different than it is today so the contradiction might actually not have any significant meaning.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jael: If it was in accordance to the man's wealth the women would always try to marry wealthy men and would try to take advantage of the situation.
regarding the line "he does not give her her less then 50 zuz" the "he" is talking about the individual tzedakah collectors. Since the orphan girl has no father, the tzedakah collector gives the dowry to the orphan girl. The "they" in the sentence is the Tzedakah committee. They decide what she deserves according to her honor. Since many women are in need of a dowry, and not all of them have fathers to give these to them, the dowry provided to the women by the tzedakah collectors have to be below the standards (50 zuz). Women who are less honorable will receive a smaller dowry, and women who are more honorable will receive a larger dowry. The reason they adjust the system is so they can fit the needs of everybody. My question is, is it better to receive a dowry less then 50 zuz (the requirement), or to not get one at all?
ReplyDeleteAnother question i have is: Is the orphan girl required to pay back the tzedakah committee? and if so, how?
In response to Ami’s question, I don’t think that the Tzedakah given to the orphan bride needs to be paid back, just like when we make a donation to an organization today, the organization doesn’t pay us back. The Tzedakah collectors are constantly collecting money from the community, which means that the kis is constantly being used and then refilled. However, I think that it is a possibility that after the orphan girl is able to get married due to the Tzedakah, her husband might donate to the Tzedakah fund as a member of the community. She would most likely not be the one donating because typically the husband handled the money and finances, and she would also not have money in her possession. (The only money that she receives is the 50 zuz minimum to buy clothes in the winter. )
ReplyDeleteI agree that the “he” is referring to the husband, and the “they” is referring to the Tzedakah collectors. My question is: Is the amount of money (50 zuz minimum) given to the bride to buy clothes in the winter according to her “kavod” like the dowry is? For example, if she has a lot of kavod (meaning of kavod still has multiple possibilities) does she receive a larger amount than someone who has less kavod? Or is this separate and depends on how much money her husband has?
In response to Eric's statement :" If it was in accordance to the man's wealth the women would always try to marry wealthy men and would try to take advantage of the situation." What makes you think this same thing wouldn't happened if a woman had money?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jael's theory that the text should be "according to HIS wealth" instead of "her wealth", are we sure that kavod/honor mean wealth? Also, the "he" is referring to the husband, and the "they" is referring to the Tzedakah collectors. In response to Ami's question "Is the orphan girl required to pay back the tzedakah committee? If so, how?", I believe that, no, the orphan girl does not have to pay back the money she receives for her dowry. However, I do agree with Tina again in that the husband will donate money to the fund as a member of the community. Also, he might be more inclined to donate more money because the community/fund had helped him out and given his wife a dowry when she needed one, and would want to support its cause more than the man who's wife isn't an orphan. My question is that since it isn't honorable for a woman to beg, is it honorable for a woman to give tzedakah? Or is that a task that is more honorable for a man as well?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tina's question, I think the money the bride receives in the winter should be based on her kavod. If the girl is honorable and wealthy, then certainly, she could provide for herself, and the money the husband gives should only be for tradition in this case. If she is not then the husband should at least give 50 zuz if not more.
ReplyDeleteIn response to her second question,
Assuming the husband has little money, then I think there should be no minimum, so that the husband can spend money on himself. Now, assuming the husband has a lot of money, then I think he should give an amount that he thinks is reasonable to the bride.
In Response too Anythony Gumberg second response to Tina's question about not having a minimum. This approach is the ideal situation but as we learned, the ideal rarely ever occurs and so the rabbis had to put a minimum value regardless of the man's wealth. If he is too poor then the community will help him. And if he is wealthy there should still be a minimum because he could be greedy. But there simply has to be a minimum because if there wasn't many husbands would take advantage of the situation. Which in turn would leave women begging for money. Which as we learned by the Great Rabbi Goodman is un-ladylike.
ReplyDeleteI believe the way we must go about understanding this seeming contradiction is by first deciphering the phrase, “He does not give her less than 50 zuz.” Let’s pretend “he” is the husband. Since husbands do not provide the dowry, the only logical explanation for this phrase would be that the husband “does not give her less than 50 zuz” worth of clothing. Now let’s pretend “he” is referring to each individual tzedakah giver of the community, as Beth hypothesized. This means each individual would have to give 50 zuz. Although these would be 50 small zuz, this is still a lot to expect, let alone command, individuals to pay. The only logical conclusion one can draw based on these facts, regarding who “he” is, is that “he” must refer to the person who literally gives the orphan girl the money.
ReplyDeleteNow let’s move on to the second sentence. “They provide for her according to her honor.” I believe “they” refers to the committee in charge of determining how much money to give to the orphan girl according to her honor. If “they” did refer to the community, this would mean people, who might not even know the girl well, could determine how much to give her even though they did not know her.
In conclusion, “they” refers to the committee in charge of determining how much of the kis money to give to the girl, and “he” refers to the literal person who gives the girl the money the committee has allotted her. Saying this, this means the committee cannot choose to give the girl less than 50 zuz because, the man literally giving her the money the committee has allotted her, cannot give her less than 50 zuz.
In response to Anthony’s comment (Assuming the husband has little money, then I think there should be no minimum, so that the husband can spend money on himself): No offense, but I think that is totally unreasonable. In Talmudic times, women were not allowed to work and provide for themselves, therefore their husbands were required to provide for them. If there was no minimum, the women might not get what they need, and they wouldn’t be able to help themselves. Since we learned that it is more embarrassing for a woman to beg door-to-door (which lessens her honor), how would the woman be able to get the necessities she needs to live?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jael’s question (And as a back up question, do you think the 50 zuz is for clothes? or just in general?): In Ketubot 64b, it lists the household furnishings and clothing that a husband is required to give to his wife, but when it comes to clothes, it specifically states, “And he gives her…clothes worth fifty zuz from year to year.” So I think the fifty zuz is just for clothes, and everything else is guaranteed.
ReplyDelete